Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SQaP6-0007Av-7i for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 May 2012 08:31:48 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=rebroad@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1SQaP3-0002gZ-VA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 May 2012 08:31:48 +0000 Received: by wibhn6 with SMTP id hn6so1842252wib.10 for ; Sat, 05 May 2012 01:31:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.142.226 with SMTP id i76mr5873335wej.28.1336206699859; Sat, 05 May 2012 01:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: rebroad@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.6.18 with HTTP; Sat, 5 May 2012 01:31:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 09:31:39 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tEAX7pjQ_myP2wR-IEDJbzhDPRA Message-ID: From: "Rebroad (sourceforge)" To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6daa637b10f4c04bf45dd6f X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (rebroad[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1SQaP3-0002gZ-VA Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Potential network split when individual tx used as coinbase? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 08:31:48 -0000 --0016e6daa637b10f4c04bf45dd6f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, > > Looking at: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3e52aaf2121d597ab1ed012b65e37f9cb5f2754e#src/main.cpp-P52 It appears that 8 months ago the code was changed to DoS(100) nodes sending on txs that use individual txs as the coinbase. Does this mean txs that are 0 confirmed? If so, then, is this a risk of a network split, as I'm sure I've read about services popping up using bitcoin that are specifically allowing 0 confirmed transactions, and therefore there must be peers around that accept these. Or have I misread the code? Cheers, Ed PS. Would a BIP have been applicable for the above-mentioned change? --0016e6daa637b10f4c04bf45dd6f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,


It appears that 8 months ago the code was changed to Do= S(100) nodes sending on txs that use individual txs as the coinbase. Does t= his mean txs that are 0 confirmed?

If so, then, is= this a risk of a network split, as I'm sure I've read about servic= es popping up using bitcoin that are specifically allowing 0 confirmed tran= sactions, and therefore there must be peers around that accept these.

Or have I misread the code?

Ch= eers,
Ed

PS. Would a BIP have been appli= cable for the=A0above-mentioned change?=A0

--0016e6daa637b10f4c04bf45dd6f--